We know almost nothing about the life of Socrates. Nobody ever
wrote his biography. In specific we are not sure why he acquiesced
so quickly to his execution. I think he found out that Plato said
that the unexamined life was not worth living. Then Socrates
looked around and discovered that nobody was examining *his* life.
[-mrl]

I was at Renovation, the World Science Fiction Convention, this
year held in Reno From August 17 to August 21.

Now when you go to a science fiction conventions there are usually
hours when there are two or three program items you want to see and
you have to choose which one you will attend and which ones you
have to sacrifice. Other hours there is nothing at all. Sometimes
it is in-between. There are programs items of minor interest and
you choose one to attend. One hour I chose one with the
unpromising title, "A Science of Science Fiction: Applying
Quantitative Analysis to Genre Individuation". The description was
"Recent research by Ryan Nichols and Justin Lynn tests hypotheses
about genre differentiation by compiling millions of words of
fantasy and science fiction with a quantitative textual analysis
tool. Dr. Nichols presents the results, which he suggests call for
data-driven revisions of a priori definitions of 'science fiction'
from Suvin, James, Hartwell, and others."

Now one does not generally see items with words like
"individuation" in the title of a Worldcon program item. This is
not to say that there are not some fairly high-level program items
on topics like recent research on Global Warming. But this seemed
a bit more abstract. But I was curious to see how they were
applying mathematics to science fiction study. But I have to admit
to listening with only half an ear as like I said it was not a
discussion I had a strong interest in. I may represent some of the
ideas wrongly below. At the same time I was listening I also
fooling around on paper looking for a graph theoretical approach
walking all around the dealers' room passing by each table exactly
once. (As I say, I may not be giving exactly a fair and accurate
representation of the material being presented.)

What the research being presented entailed was having computers
look at the text of a large number of stories and to see if
software could tell which were science fiction, which were horror,
and which were fantasy. It is very hard to define, for example,
what exactly science fiction is. This has long been a topic for
debate and frequently the searches for a good definition end up
circular. Damon Knight said that science fiction is what I point
to when I think "science fiction." I think this was modeled on the
judge who would not define pornography beyond saying, "I know it
when I see it."

Lynn and Nichols approach was to do a word count. It was sort of
what we all do. If I open up a story and see the words "warp
drive," that is probably science fiction. "Dripping ichor"
suggests horror. "Unicorn" or "Genie" points to fantasy. My
suspicion is that this is not a very useful tool. It might
recognize some obvious cases. But there are a lot of pieces that
are science fiction that probably do not use the tropes of science
fiction. I would be curious to see if their analysis could pick
out FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON by Daniel Keyes as being a science fiction
novel.

What the researchers are doing is tantamount to being the
equivalent of racial profiling for searching for terrorists. Some
countries have done this very effectively, but it probably will
never be foolproof.

But as I say, this article is not to evaluate their research. In
fact I *still* have not gotten to the point. Something like twenty
minutes into the talk Lynn and Nichols did something bizarre. They
said they would now take a five-minute intermission. The audience
members should take this time to introduce themselves to the person
sitting next to them and discuss the talk so far to their neighbor.

First thought: what a dumb idea. Is this some sort of touchy-feely
Diversity meeting? But people tend to do what they are told. And
I introduced myself and told my neighbor about how I doubted they
could recognize FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON. Two people from the row
ahead joined in to make it a four-way conversation. After five
minutes they started up again and the material became more
interesting. My ideas were more focused. I am still sure that I
believe there is much to learn from statistical analysis of
vocabulary. But the break to discuss the material is actually very
good. I wish when I used to do software classes I had known about
discussion intermissions in presentations for people to discuss the
material. That was the best idea I heard expressed the entire
convention. [-mrl]

CAPSULE: Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a young man who has a possibly
terminal case of spine cancer with 50/50 odds of surviving. His
disease transforms his relationship with people he knows,
particularly his complete vulgarian best friend played by Seth
Rogen and his novice therapist Anna Kendrick. Jonathan Levine
directs a film that may be one of the year's best but still makes
one yearn for the serious and uncompromising films of the 1950s and
1960s. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10

In a previous age the film industry could have made for its general
audience a grim and hard-hitting film like THE DAYS OF WINE AND
ROSES. That film looked at the problem of alcoholism. It is a
love story too, but at the same time we know that it is a story of
doomed love. We know from the beginning that it is about what
happens when alcoholism destroys lives. These days we know that
what the core audience is buying is films like CAPTAIN AMERICA,
GREEN LANTERN, and THOR, albeit bringing in diminishing audiences.
With 50/50 the filmmakers are testing the waters with a mainstream
film on the subject of cancer, but sweetening the pot with raunchy
comedy and a sweet boy meets girl subplot. It is not as if they
are doing a good job of bringing a serious subject to Saturday
night audiences, but it has become amazing that they are doing it
at all. And I am sure they are paying a price for it. I know of a
film fan who would not go to Disney Studio's excellent THE BRIDGE
TO TERABITHIA or the equally good AWAY FROM HER because those have
some grim and realistic elements.

Adam (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a seemingly healthy man
about twenty-four years old with an attractive girlfriend, Rachael
(Bryce Dallas Howard), and a best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) who is a
bit crude. Make that "more than a bit." But Adam has been
suffering from a backache and a visit to the doctor tells him that
it is caused by a rare form of spinal cancer. Adam researches his
affliction on the Internet and discovers that his odds of surviving
are somewhere around 50% (hence the title of the film). Adam is
prescribed a course of chemotherapy. What follows mixes comedy and
high drama as his relationships to Rachael, Kyle, his mother
(Anjelica Huston), and pretty much everyone he knows will now be
driven by the fact that in a year Adam may no longer be alive. He
gets a young therapist to help him cope Katherine (Anna Kendrick of
UP IN THE AIR). She turns out to be something of a novice and is
awkward around Adam, her third patient. He makes friends with two
older men, both also getting chemotherapy, whom he sees at the
hospital, Alan (Philip Baker Hall) and Mitch (Matt Frewer of "Max
Headroom").

Gordon-Leavitt does not have what I would consider an expressive
face. In INCEPTION he played the role very straight and deadpan.
That may not be the most communicative acting, but here it probably
works in his best interest. Adam is the sort of person who will
remain bottled up inside himself until he boils over. Gordon-
Leavitt is actually a good choice for Adam. Scriptwriter Will
Reiser based the script on his own experience in his bout with
spinal cancer. During that time he too had a tasteless best friend
like the one that Seth Rogan plays. His best friend was Seth
Rogan. In a sense, Rogan is playing himself, so his acting cannot
really be faulted. Anna Kendrick has yet to do any powerful or
impressive acting in anything I have seen her in--which is to say
in this and UP IN THE AIR. She has a fresh face and manner that is
pleasant to see on the screen, but it will be interesting to so if
she can take on more demanding roles. If she lacks range it may
not be such a grievous fault. In most of her early films Audrey
Hepburn did not show much dramatic range I am aware of. She also
had a fresh face and manner.

To me this film seems like a compromise with the viewing public.
Your spoonful of sugar is a rollicking and a little gross comedy
and a love story with attractive people. But you have to swallow
down your cancer story with it. At least it is closer to the real
world than THOR is. I rate 50/50 a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or
7/10.

SUPERTHUNDERSTINGCAR! A perennial favorite, and I will amplify the
recommendation by repeating it in RASFF [rec.arts.sf.fandom, where
this was originally posted] (again). Not only does this cast of
two manage to portray almost all of the cast, but the attention to
detail is remarkable. The walks are perfect and the American
accents are hilarious (Peter Cook's version of a bad English accent
is lovely). The props are only slightly better than the real show.
The most telling detail is the eyes. Watch the eyes. They don't
blink! Well, Dudley blinks once, but he does it in character.
Worth re-watching. [-kw]

And in response to Kip, Paul Dormer writes:

I actually remember that when it was first broadcast.

Curiously, the only other sketch from that series I remember was an
interview with a film director who made films about burglars who
surprise young women and make them take off their cloths and young
women who take off their clothes and surprise burglars. I would
have been about thirteen at the time. Can't think why I remember
that. [-pd]

I recently listened to the L.A. Theaterworks (LATW) audio
performance of DEATH OF A SALESMAN by Arthur Miller (ISBN 978-0-14-
048134-1). (At one point, this would have been called a radio
play, but that seems a bit archaic now.) I also have recently
listened to the BBC version as well. Now, I had always heard that
one difference between movies and plays was that the moviemakers
(primarily the director) could change the script without getting
the writer's permission, while in a play one has to get the
writer's approval to change anything. Assuming this is true, I
thought it also applied to audio performances, but apparently not.
I cannot tell all the changes LATW made, but a major one is that
LATW dropped the scene between the mother and the two sons over
their desertion of their father in the restaurant. (There also
seems to be some re-arrangement of the flashback to the Boston
hotel room.) I have no idea why they did this--it certainly does
not improve the play. To me, it is as though they decided to do
Hamlet and left out the speech of Polonius to Laertes. And when I
went back and compared the LATW production with the play, I found a
lot of other changes. For example, all the conversations between
Biff and Happy about womanizing were dropped, and in other places
two or three lines seem to have been cut for no particular reason.
I usually like the LATW productions, but they fumbled the ball on
this one.

[Perhaps there were time constraints. -mrl]

The play itself was written in 1949, but still has a lot of
relevance today, over sixty years later. It isn't just the job of
traveling salesman that is stressful and insecure, but almost every
job. Willy Loman bemoans the fact that "in those days there was
personality in it.... There was respect, and comradeship, and
gratitude in it. Today, it's all cut and dried, and there's no
chance for bringing friendship to bear--or personality." Everyone
can identify with the person who gives the best years of their life
to a company, only to be discarded when they are no longer at their
peak. "You can't eat the orange and throw the peel away--a man is
not a piece of fruit." We want to think that we are better than
Willy--not as deluded, not as fickle in our opinions--but we still
have the same concerns about our jobs that he does.

One thing that does trouble me is the tendency in some schools to
adopt Loman's attitude toward his sons, working more to build up
their self-respect, or perhaps more accurately, their "amour
propre", than to emphasize hard work and perseverance. Loman
doesn't tell Biff to study more so he won't flunk math--he just
insists that Bernard will give Biff the answers. He tells Biff and
Hap how much better they will do in life because they are so much
better-looking and personable than Bernard, without ever asking if
they have any skills. All of this is reminiscent of something
covered in the movie WAITING FOR SUPERMAN where students in the
United States place somewhere around 18th the developed world in
math skills, but when you survey them on where they think we place,
they overwhelmingly say "Number One!"

[In 12th grade we are 19th, according to
. -mrl]

The BBC also made cuts, but different ones. They cut a reference
to smoking and several sections dealing with football, boxing, and
other sports (probably too obscure for a British audience, much as
most Americans wouldn't understand details about cricket), but also
the stealing from the construction site and other lines important
to portraying the characters.

Indeed, that is what makes this play so great. Almost every line
is full of meaning and connections to other lines. For example, in
one line Willy says that Biff is lazy, then three lines later he
says that one thing about Biff is that he is not lazy. In one
place, he says he never taught Biff to steal, but elsewhere he
tells him to go get some sand from the supply at the construction
site. On page 80, Willy says Howard's father asked him what he
thinks of the name "Howard" for his new son, but by page 97, he is
saying that he named Howard. In the restaurant, is Happy denying
that Willy is his father supposed to echo Peter's denial of Jesus?
And so on. If I started doing a commentary on everything I
noticed, this would go on forever. [-ecl]

Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Quote of the Week:
To solve any problem, here are three questions
to ask yourself: First, what could I do? Second,
what could I read? And third, who could I ask?
--Jim Rohn